Comments deleted. This is a political process question. This is not the place to speculate about any political motives behind resignations from and nominations for the SCOTUS.
– Philipp♦Jun 28 at 12:51

2

Please keep in mind that not all people here are from the USA and familiar with every acronym that is used there. Including a description of what SCOTUS actually stands for would therefor be really helpful. At least in cases like SCOTUS/POTUS that are more colloquially used and not (as) official acronyms like FBI/CIA etc.
– OH GOD SPIDERSJun 28 at 14:42

@OH GOD SPIDERS: It's not just people who aren't from the USA. I have a good bit of difficulty with some of those acronyms too.
– jamesqfJul 1 at 18:18

There are nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. When a justice leaves the Court, a replacement is appointed to that same seat. and organized on September 24, 1789 by the Judiciary Act of 1789 1 Stat. 73.
Seat 5 was established on September 24, 1789, by the Judiciary Act of 1789 1 Stat. 73. It was abolished by the Judicial Circuits Act 14 Stat. 209 on July 5, 1867, before the court established the practice of hiring law clerks.
Seat 6 was established on February 24, 1807 by the Seventh Circuit Act 2 Stat. 420.
Seats 7 and 8 were established on March 3, 1837, by the Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act 5 Stat. 176. Seat 7 was abolished by the Judicial Circuits Act 14 Stat. 209 on July 23, 1866, before the court established the practice of hiring law clerks.
Seat 9 was established on March 3, 1863 by the Tenth Circuit Act 12 Stat. 794.
Seat 10 was established on April 10, 1869 by the Circuit Judges Act of 1869 16 Stat. 44.

I would assume that "and organized" should be "as organized".

Anyway, each nominee is appointed to a specific seat, not just to the Supreme Court. E.g.

OK. I think I may have effed up with my question's wording. This is an amazing answer, but it talks about replacing when seated, whereas what I was asking about (at least intended to ask about) was replacing when nominated. In other words, when Powell was nominated (NOT seated), was it known upfront that it was for seat 4 and not seat 9?
– user4012Jun 29 at 18:00

Either way this is an amazing piece of info I wasn't aware of, +1!
– user4012Jun 29 at 18:00

TL;DR: President is NOT required to announce who replaces which justice, when more than one Associate Justice vacancy exists.

@Machavity's answer didn't quite answer my question (as his example explicitly didn't count due to involving Chief Justice position, sorry). However, his answer pointed to the Wiki page that did offer one answer; and the correct answer ironically is still Rehnquist related.

So far I found 5 cases of dual nominations, but only 3 of them was for cases of two associate justices. Of those Taft's nomination of Devanter and Lamar, I couldn't find any primary evidence; neither of Roosevelt's nomination of Jackon and Byrnes. Even books discussing both have no references
– user4012Jun 28 at 14:04

In the US Supreme Court, there are really only two positions: associate justice, and chief justice. The chief justice sets the agenda, but in the end, has no more voting power than the eight other justices.

So, unless the presidential nomination is for chief justice, it doesn't really matter what order they are appointed in, at least officially. Unofficially, this will determine how long the junior justice has the junior duties, such as opening doors for the others, and a few other menial tasks. Yes, even a supreme court justice is subject to a bit of hazing.

To a slight degree, seniority plays a role in who writes the majority opinion, that will be referenced by lower courts in rulings. However, that opinion must reflect the sentiments of the majority of the court, so even that is at best a minor advantage.

But, once on the court, even a junior justice's vote counts as much as the eight other, regardless of how long they've been on the bench.

This actually happened in 2005. Former justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1 of that year and (now Chief Justice) John Roberts was nominated to fill her seat. Chief Justice William Rehnquist died on Sept 3, 2005. Roberts nomination was then withdrawn for O'Connor's seat so he could be nominated for Chief Justice. Had Rehnquist been a regular associate justice the re-nomination would have been unnecessary since his position within the court would have not changed.

Incidentally, Rehnquist was an associate justice on SCOTUS before being nominated for Chief Justice.

In my question I very specifically excluded the "Chief Justice" scenario since in that case, indeed, there would be an obvious and meaningful difference. The question is, would the re-nomination have happened if it wasn't Chief Justice who died and needed to be replaced. I'm assuming there is no precedent?
– user4012Jun 28 at 13:28

I take that last sentence back. I think Rehnquist's original nomination and Powell was a possible precedent (NOT Rehnquist's CJ nomination)
– user4012Jun 28 at 13:32

Yeah, it's hard to find a non-CJ incident. But had Renquist not died I would have expected Roberts to be in O'Connor's seat instead of Alito
– MachavityJun 28 at 13:41

1

This also doesn't address the case where there's two open seats at the same time without anyone having been nominated for either one, which is the ambiguous case the question is about.
– BobsonJun 29 at 1:14